nursing program in danger - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 15, 2005

nursing program in danger

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Out of curiosity, I checked the NCLEX passage rate at my own university, which is much smaller and has fewer resources than USM. The comparison does not make USM look good. This is a shame, since it is my understanding that before SFT became president, USM's Nursing School was very highly ranked. Here is the appropriate link:

"The class of 2003 had a 100% pass rate on the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEX) on their first try! Click here to read more."

If we can do this well, surely USM, with its superior resources, can do better than it is now doing. I suspect that part of the difference is that at my school, the nursing program, like all other programs, is really valued and encouraged by the upper-level administrators, all of whom are serious academics who all take academics seriously.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

It doesn't really matter what the arbitrary cut off score for a C is, does it? What matters is the faculty's standards.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

it seems to me that the score it takes to pass a nursing course ought to have some correspondence to the score it takes to pass the NCLEX. and a 70 was a C? in my courses a 70 is 2 points from the bottom of the D range.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

From the article:

Seven current nursing students contacted by the Hattiesburg Americansaid they feared reprisals from Southern Miss nursing faculty and other students if they spoke on the record about concerns they had over changes in the nursing program.

Go, Kevin! This is why we're gonna miss you...you tell it like it is.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Another article in H.A. about Nursing:

USM facility's future uncertain
School bought Albertsons for nursing program

By Kevin Walters

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050315/NEWS01/503150325/1002

Date: Mar 15, 2005

"Southern Miss bought the 62,322-square-foot former grocery store from Hattiesburg businessman Ray Sims for $1.2 million in 2002."

Does anyone know if Mr. Sims was at the infamous Thursday meeting?

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Found this on the web:

"Mr. Ray Sims of L & A Construction, a big supporter of USM, will be hosting a “shindig” at his ranch July 20. Political leaders from the Gulf Coast, Jackson, and Hattiesburg will be among the invited guests. This is being done to help USM make new friends across the state."

http://www-org.usm.edu/~scouncil/html/Minutes/02-03/Jul.html

Date: Mar 15, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Just an opinion
"Found this on the web: "Mr. Ray Sims of L & A Construction, a big supporter of USM, will be hosting a “shindig” at his ranch July 20. Political leaders from the Gulf Coast, Jackson, and Hattiesburg will be among the invited guests. This is being done to help USM make new friends across the state." http://www-org.usm.edu/~scouncil/html/Minutes/02-03/Jul.html "

More tidbits from these minutes (from 2002...so long ago! My bolded text and notes):

"On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, Dr. Thames will hold a press conference to name the individuals who will be filling very important positions on campus. A lot of thought has gone into the appointments. He encouraged everyone to show support for the new administrators. [Truth notes: in other words, don't ask lots of questions about their CVs or prior academic experience.] In order to save the University money, Dr. Thames will be moving into the USM presidential home. [Truth notes: ???WTF???] He will not be having an inaugural ball, but he will be having a reception at the president’s home." [Truth notes: did AKL or Horace Fleming have an 'inaugural ball?' Must have missed that one...]

And this....

"If anyone is interested in purchasing polymer paint, you can contact Mr. Rocky Pryor with Southern Diversified Products. The flat base paint is competitively priced. USM receives a portion of the profits on the sales of polymer paint."

We were so naive then....

Truth

Date: Mar 15, 2005

The data below was in the hard edition of the Hattiesburg American but not the on line version.

NCLEX pass rates for Mississippi Nursing degree programs

’99 00 01 02 03

Alcorn 100% 100% 100% 91.7% 88.9%

Delta 96.6% 84.2% 91.7% 88.9% 94.1%

Miss College 81% 90.2% 88.4% 93.5% 95.9%

MUW 100% 96.4% 92.7% 89.5% 80.4%

UM Med Center 80.6% 79.8% 81.3% 97% 94.5%

USM 86.2% 91.4% 81.6% 78% 78.8%

W.Carey College 72.2% 82.2% 83.3% 95.7% 91.3%

National Rate 84.4% 83.8% 85% 86.7% 86.8%

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Oh my my

Date: Mar 15, 2005

Outrageous. I sincerely hurt for the nursing program. This is so wrong.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

for some of these univesities the pass rate moves like a bouncing ball--changes of 10% or more in a year! can someone knowledgeable explain? i've heard the pass rate can move that much because the numbers on which the percentages are based can be very small in some cases.

Date: Mar 15, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"for some of these univesities the pass rate moves like a bouncing ball--changes of 10% or more in a year!"

The pass rate may, as you say, move like a bouncing ball - but for the past three years the ball has been bouncing in favor of the two smaller private schools on the list: the pass rates for William Carey and Mississippi College have exceeded that of USM for the past three years. It will be interesting to see what the 2004 have in store for USM.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

Good job Kevin Walters! Too bad you couldn't get the people to talk who are really in control and those who influence the school of nursing (faculty and administrators, Dr. Nugent, alumni).

Seems what was left out is very critical, hope others will notice it. Peter Fos was only one interviewed and it was clear to me that he has minimal information about the SON, even less when discussing NCLEX scores and strategies to improve. Many believe that the grading scale change was simply something highly visible which on the surface appears to "raise standards", thus increase NCLEX pass rates. As we have experienced (those of us who are old dogs in academic), grading scales have little to do with student performance. Grade inflation is right around the corner! To be fair, the SON is doing more than just this to address the NCLEX problem, for example, a consultant met with faculty last week in a half day workshop and the curriculum is going through revisions as well. Conventional wisdom: "restructuring of colleges" two years ago which happened without warning and resulted in the firing of our wonderful Dean, Dr. Marie Farrell. From that point on, the school has been on a slippery slope plagued with faculty turnovers, hiring of part time faculty and non tenure track instructors, declining resources, and a new director/Dean every year. Our accreditation visitors with CCNE were assured that a new building was “in the pipeline”; USM even hired architecture to work with us on the rendering in 2003. Our building is fast becoming a real health hazard. Coupled with the fungi growing everywhere from the regular hot water breaks and the reality of the 400 plus students and faculty who are in and out of the building on a daily basis coming and going to hospitals and other agencies, bringing even more pathogens with them, the compounding effect results in the spread of these potentially dangerous organisms to everyone in the building

So there is still more to the story…sadly.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"for some of these univesities the pass rate moves like a bouncing ball--changes of 10% or more in a year! can someone knowledgeable explain? i've heard the pass rate can move that much because the numbers on which the percentages are based can be very small in some cases. "

scm,

This is what happens when you have small samples.

If you see such fluctuations in the pass rates for students coming out a larger program, then you start looking for explanations.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 16, 2005

robert--having a pretty good background in stats (up through multivariate and structural equation modeling) i wondered why these numbers would bounce so much. i have no idea how many USM students take the nursing exam each year compared to those at other institutions, however.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"robert--having a pretty good background in stats (up through multivariate and structural equation modeling) i wondered why these numbers would bounce so much. i have no idea how many USM students take the nursing exam each year compared to those at other institutions, however. "

Stinky, it's not necessary to appeal to multivariate and structural equation modeling in understanding the bouncing ball seen in the Nursing data. There is a more parsimonious explanation:

Enrollment figures from the nursingms.org annual report (includes grad students):

Alcorn 58
Delta State 40
MC 101
MUW 126
UMC 208
USM 533
WCC 126

Conclusion based solely on knolwedge of middle-school math: Scores move more at small programs because of small number taking the test each year. USM's large enrollment figure (533) suggests that changes in scores reflect real changes in the program.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Bouncy Bouncy
" Stinky, it's not necessary to appeal to multivariate and structural equation modeling in understanding the bouncing ball seen in the Nursing data. There is a more parsimonious explanation: Enrollment figures from the nursingms.org annual report (includes grad students): Alcorn 58 Delta State 40 MC 101 MUW 126 UMC 208 USM 533 WCC 126 Conclusion based solely on knolwedge of middle-school math: Scores move more at small programs because of small number taking the test each year. USM's large enrollment figure (533) suggests that changes in scores reflect real changes in the program. "

Bouncy,

Thanks for the stats! Nice analysis.

Amy Young

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Bouncy Bouncy
" Stinky, it's not necessary to appeal to multivariate and structural equation modeling in understanding the bouncing ball seen in the Nursing data. There is a more parsimonious explanation: Enrollment figures from the nursingms.org annual report (includes grad students): Alcorn 58 Delta State 40 MC 101 MUW 126 UMC 208 USM 533 WCC 126 Conclusion based solely on knolwedge of middle-school math: Scores move more at small programs because of small number taking the test each year. USM's large enrollment figure (533) suggests that changes in scores reflect real changes in the program. "

Excluding the private schools, USM is responsible for educating more than 50% of the state's nurses and this program has sat on a back burner while Shelby focused on trying to make a polymer silk purse out of an economic development sow's ear?

Date: Mar 16, 2005

bouncy--i know sophisticated statistical techniques aren't necessary. my question is still unanswered (enrollment numbers only give a guide)--does any one know how many USM people are taking the exams in these years, particularly compared to UMC?

Date: Mar 16, 2005

About 45-50 in the last class (we graduate students Fall and Spring) so that will be about 100 per year taking the NCLEX. By the way, the Universities listed in the table on this thread is the BSN programs only. There are several other ADN programs.

USM is the largest source of BSN and MSN educated nurses in the State.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

Let me get this straight in my mind:

a. We've increased the number of students in the nursing program to meet demand;

b. We have too many nursing graduates failing the NCLEX

c. We increase the graduation requirements and decrease the number of graduates so that only better students graduate in order to improve the NCLEX scores

It seems to me that we're diminishing the through-put of our nursing program. Is it ethical to admit more students, knowing that it is less likely that these students will ever graduate? Will this create ill-will amoung parents when daughter (son) hits the brick wall? Will it solve the nursing shortage to decrease the number of graduates? Are we doing this just to increase our enrollment figures?

My suggestion: since the infrastructure for a separate College of Nursing exists now, Shelby should admit his grievous error and reinstate the CON. That would rejuvenate the nursing program, help in the recruiting of new faculty and would prevent the COH from cannibalizing its other departments in deference to nursing.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: Rod_Sterling
"Let me get this straight in my mind: a. We've increased the number of students in the nursing program to meet demand;

b. We have too many nursing graduates failing the NCLEX

c. We increase the graduation requirements and decrease the number of graduates so that only better students graduate in order to improve the NCLEX scores It seems to me that we're diminishing the through-put of our nursing program. Is it ethical to admit more students, knowing that it is less likely that these students will ever graduate? Will this create ill-will amoung parents when daughter (son) hits the brick wall? Will it solve the nursing shortage to decrease the number of graduates? Are we doing this just to increase our enrollment figures? My suggestion: since the infrastructure for a separate College of Nursing exists now, Shelby should admit his grievous error and reinstate the CON. That would rejuvenate the nursing program, help in the recruiting of new faculty and would prevent the COH from cannibalizing its other departments in deference to nursing. "

Rod,

You seem to be confused:

A. The number of students admitted to the nursing program is down over
previous years because of faculty shortages caused by departures.

B. Correct

C. The grading standards are being raised so that students will work
harder and learn more in their classes and do better on the NCLEX. As
has happened all over campus, grade inflation has taken its toll in
nursing over the years. If other programs on campus had national exit
exams, we would see the effect of lowering academic standards more
clearly. We would also see the effect of losing over 200 faculty in two
years.

You are correct that the College of Nursing should be restored.
However, the administration will admit a mistake when pigs fly.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: The Shadow
""

Arbitrarily raising the average required for a C to 77 does nothing about grade inflation...it may be just as easy, or even easier, to reach a 77 average than the previous 70 average. The culture of the university must emphasize accurate grading and appropriate standards - NOT making students happy and passing everyone so you can get 20,000 students

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: OUTSIDE OBSERVER
"Arbitrarily raising the average required for a C to 77 does nothing about grade inflation...it may be just as easy, or even easier, to reach a 77 average than the previous 70 average. The culture of the university must emphasize accurate grading and appropriate standards - NOT making students happy and passing everyone so you can get 20,000 students"

Correct O.O. It is worst than what you described. Faculty are evaluated on teaching, research and service. Their raises, when they exist, are based on these evaluations. Teaching is evaluated by students, who tend to give better evaluations to teachers who give many "As” and who require less work of the student. (I’m not knocking students since many have no time to study because of work and family responsibilities. Many should never be in university with the problems they have.) "Smart" faculty will spend their time on research and devote as little effort on students as possible. Requiring less work from students means fewer papers to grade and more time for research and a chance for the big money rewards from the SFT's administration.

If they wanted academic excellence at USM, they could easily revise the present reward system. However, if we were an MIT or Harvard, there would be few students attending and that isn't good business if you own apartments and restaurants.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

IHL also oversees associate degree nursing (ADN) programs at the community colleges. (MUW also operates an associate degree program.) ADN graduates sit for exactly the same NCLEX-RN exam as do BSN graduates. The Hattiesburg American was thoughtful enough not to put the ADN pass rates in its table, so here are the statewide ADN pass rates:

ADN PASS RATE
1999 - 88.5%
2000 - 87.3%
2001 - 85.0%
2002 - 86.1%
2003 - 86.7%

In 2003, only the MUW & Itawamba CC nursing programs had lower pass rates than did USM. It's important, though, to revisit what Robert Campbell said above about small sample sizes & fluctuations. But over time, there really doesn't appear to be a significant difference in NCLEX-RN pass rates between ADN & BSN programs.

As far as the grading scale issues, I would tend to let the nursing faculty address this as they see fit. But bear in mind that many other departments that teach "support" classes (e.g., psychology, biology, chemistry, etc.) should work closely with nursing to ensure student success & something tells me USM has plenty of work to do in that area as well.

Date: Mar 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Faculty
" Correct O.O. It is worst than what you described. Faculty are evaluated on teaching, research and service. Their raises, when they exist, are based on these evaluations. Teaching is evaluated by students, who tend to give better evaluations to teachers who give many "As” and who require less work of the student. (I’m not knocking students since many have no time to study because of work and family responsibilities. Many should never be in university with the problems they have.) "Smart" faculty will spend their time on research and devote as little effort on students as possible. Requiring less work from students means fewer papers to grade and more time for research and a chance for the big money rewards from the SFT's administration. If they wanted academic excellence at USM, they could easily revise the present reward system. However, if we were an MIT or Harvard, there would be few students attending and that isn't good business if you own apartments and restaurants. "

I think your assessment is right on the money...and it's not just at USM. The "smart" faculty you describe are simply doing what the organizational reward systems are encouraging them to do. It is generally true that organizations get what they reward...whether they really want it or not...and even while they may be saying something entirely different. I think it's particularly problematic in universities where you just can't really measure teaching effectiveness. And rather than meet that issue head on, they use superficial, subjective, and general invalid "measures" such as student ratings.